@Coinstartled said:
CAC goes full service and nobody would have to wonder much about anything.
...and a quick question, does JA have x-ray vision? Even with the so called edge view holders, part of the rims are obstructed. On the older PCGS/NGC holders, most of the rims are not visible.
As we are splitting grades to where only a dozen collectors per category can see the differences, how are rims accounted for?
If you actually owned any coins worth sending to CAC, you would sing a different song. He doesn't sticker details/problem/holed/jewelry piece/graffiti coins.
Well certainly most damaged coins are identifiable by examining the obverse and reverse, sometimes though damage is on the rim. Does JA just assume that what cannot be seen is unimpaired?
There is no other way. It is also why I would be scared of a pre prong holder coin that looked ridiculously under graded even by old standards.
There is no reasoning with close minded individuals. Should he also drill to the center of the coin to make sure the exact metal content is right? I'll take my chances that PCGS or NGC did not slip in a rim damaged coin, in the exact spot that the slab covers, to try and fool the world, and CAC.
Since you won't take my word for it, James Garcia (formerly of Scotsman) had an interesting post on the NGC forums some time ago about an OGH bust coin that he was burned on. The coin was silently netgraded for rim damage and not visible until he cracked it.
Edited: It may also have had other issues. In any event, @coinstartled is right that holders can hide things and CAC (and everyone else for that matter) can only go based on what isn't obscured by the plastic. Many coins that look super PQ at first have subtle issues that caused a netgrade. It is one of the reasons I hate the market grading concept and think all issues should be noted on the slab rather than silently sweeping it under the rug with a netgrade.
Edited: It may also have had other issues. In any event, @coinstartled is right that holders can hide things and CAC (and everyone else for that matter) can only go based on what isn't obscured by the plastic. Many coins that look super PQ at first have subtle issues that caused a netgrade. It is one of the reasons I hate the market grading concept and think all issues should be noted on the slab rather than silently sweeping it under the rug with a netgrade.
Interestingly, that is exactly what PCGS does with paper money. Maybe they just need a bigger slab to write on.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I guess CAC really does not matter. Sorry for thinking that it adds value to a coin. My apologies to the CAC haters. (Coins sold less than one month apart.)
@Wabbit2313 said:
I guess CAC really does not matter. Sorry for thinking that it adds value to a coin. My apologies to the CAC haters. (Coins sold less than one month apart.)
.
.
.
Be careful, that could just as easily be a function of venue not sticker.
But I'm not sure anyone said that the market doesn't value CAC. The "haters" were mostly remarking that the market is over-valuing CAC, not failing to value it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@Wabbit2313 said:
I guess CAC really does not matter. Sorry for thinking that it adds value to a coin. My apologies to the CAC haters. (Coins sold less than one month apart.)
.
.
.
Be careful, that could just as easily be a function of venue not sticker.
But I'm not sure anyone said that the market doesn't value CAC. The "haters" were mostly remarking that the market is over-valuing CAC, not failing to value it.
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You are intentionally missing the point. No one I've seen said that CAC doesn't matter. The argument is over CAC mattering too much. The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You are intentionally missing the point. No one I've seen said that CAC doesn't matter. The argument is over CAC mattering too much. The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
Why not? It should be about the coin. I often pay next grade up for the right coin. I try to pay as little as I can but to get the coins I want I pay up when I have to.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
Why not? It should be about the coin. I often pay next grade up for the right coin. I try to pay as little as I can but to get the coins I want I pay up when ai have to.
m
Wisest post that I have seen in a couple months, Mark!
@Wabbit2313 said:
I guess CAC really does not matter. Sorry for thinking that it adds value to a coin. My apologies to the CAC haters. (Coins sold less than one month apart.)
Yes the CAC Sotheby's coin fetched $75k, but it looks like a lock 64 and sold for more than even the 64s I saw. The CAC 63 DMPL right before that one fetched $54k and the one before that was in the $50+k range, both PCGS. I think the $75k is an outlier.
And for the record, I never said that CAC wouldn't add value. I said there could be valid reasons for not submitting. If you have a coin you know will fail, one may choose to not to do so. It allows you to truthfully say that you have never submitted the coin when asked, which is better than having to ethically say it failed. There may be other valid reasons as well as suggested by others.
Based on my experience with Morgans, the coin looks like a 63 DMPL by today's standards but I do not believe it is solid or high end for the grade. I think it would not sticker. I think it sold for a value consistent with its true quality. I refrained from addressing this earlier because I truly believe it is inconsiderate and tacky to attack a coin that is up for sale publicly, which is the real point of contention between myself and a couple of posters in this thread.
@Wabbit2313 said:
There is ZERO chance a 50K+ coin was not sent to CAC before going up for sale.
I think this is an incorrect statement. It is up to a consignor to decide whether it should be sent in to CAC. There may be all kinds of reasons that he/she would decline to do so.
@Coinstartled said:
CAC goes full service and nobody would have to wonder much about anything.
...and a quick question, does JA have x-ray vision? Even with the so called edge view holders, part of the rims are obstructed. On the older PCGS/NGC holders, most of the rims are not visible.
As we are splitting grades to where only a dozen collectors per category can see the differences, how are rims accounted for?
If you actually owned any coins worth sending to CAC, you would sing a different song. He doesn't sticker details/problem/holed/jewelry piece/graffiti coins.
Well certainly most damaged coins are identifiable by examining the obverse and reverse, sometimes though damage is on the rim. Does JA just assume that what cannot be seen is unimpaired?
There is no other way. It is also why I would be scared of a pre prong holder coin that looked ridiculously under graded even by old standards.
There is no reasoning with close minded individuals. Should he also drill to the center of the coin to make sure the exact metal content is right? I'll take my chances that PCGS or NGC did not slip in a rim damaged coin, in the exact spot that the slab covers, to try and fool the world, and CAC.
Since you won't take my word for it, James Garcia (formerly of Scotsman) had an interesting post on the NGC forums some time ago about an OGH bust coin that he was burned on. The coin was silently netgraded for rim damage and not visible until he cracked it.
Edited: It may also have had other issues. In any event, @coinstartled is right that holders can hide things and CAC (and everyone else for that matter) can only go based on what isn't obscured by the plastic. Many coins that look super PQ at first have subtle issues that caused a netgrade. It is one of the reasons I hate the market grading concept and think all issues should be noted on the slab rather than silently sweeping it under the rug with a netgrade.
And there was a CAC sticker on it?
The idea you state would be a nice option to be available.
Why not? It should be about the coin. I often pay next grade up for the right coin. I try to pay as little as I can but to get the coins I want I pay up when I have to.
m
Sight unseen?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Why not? It should be about the coin. I often pay next grade up for the right coin. I try to pay as little as I can but to get the coins I want I pay up when I have to.
m
Sight unseen?
Who said anything about sight unseen? Where did that come from?
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Why not? It should be about the coin. I often pay next grade up for the right coin. I try to pay as little as I can but to get the coins I want I pay up when I have to.
m
Sight unseen?
Who said anything about sight unseen? Where did that come from?
m
In a way it is. How many people get to see the Great Collections coins in person before they are auctioned? It seems to me that a huge majority of the bidders are bidding based upon photos, and most of those photos are not adequate in my opinion. They show the whole slab, which means that the coin gets only a minority of the space. We know that even the best photos are not a perfect substitute for viewing the coins in person. When the images of the coin are small, they are less so.
Yes, the photos provide you with something, but it is far from perfect.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Who said anything about sight unseen? Where did that come from?
m
The GC coin is sight unseen with only a photo to go by. You see it all the time with lesser coins on GC. A bunch of common coins in AU58 CAC went for MS63 money not so long ago.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You are intentionally missing the point. No one I've seen said that CAC doesn't matter. The argument is over CAC mattering too much. The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
I was not talking to you above. I was talking to the close minded, and I decided they were right and I was wrong. Now I will move on.
In last 2 years 90 % of coins I have bought have been CAC.. This CAC hate stuff reminds how coins dealers , howled hated when PCGS ,NGC came on the scene
Look at ebay most CAC coins get more than non CAC coins ,,
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You are intentionally missing the point. No one I've seen said that CAC doesn't matter. The argument is over CAC mattering too much. The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
I was not talking to you above. I was talking to the close minded, and I decided they were right and I was wrong. Now I will move on.
In last 2 years 90 % of coins I have bought have been CAC.. This CAC hate stuff reminds how coins dealers , howled hated when PCGS ,NGC came on the scene
Look at ebay most CAC coins get more than non CAC coins ,,
Look at the top pop PCGS registry coins that are in the toilet now. In Quarters the commons are down 75%.
Who said anything about sight unseen? Where did that come from?
m
The GC coin is sight unseen with only a photo to go by. You see it all the time with lesser coins on GC. A bunch of common coins in AU58 CAC went for MS63 money not so long ago.
Ah. I wasn’t following that line of thinking. I haven’t used GC yet. I would never buy anything sight unseen or off of pictures so I would have to disqualify myself. I was just speaking of coins I’ve seen myself or had return privileges on.
Dealers vetting coins for me I obviously don’t count as sight unseen.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@bestday said:
What is the Wholesale bid on a 1889cc DMPL 63?
55K, but who really knows when a coin only sells every couple of years? There have only been 3 sold in the least 3 years, counting the Sotheby's coin.
Wonder if the strategy was to trash the coin online and cause the CDN bid to drop.
Hope that is not the case.
And did they bid the Sotheby's coin up to 75K just to raise the CDN bid? Sometimes your comments are so foolish, just reading them causes a drop in IQ.
@bestday said:
What is the Wholesale bid on a 1889cc DMPL 63?
55K, but who really knows when a coin only sells every couple of years? There have only been 3 sold in the least 3 years, counting the Sotheby's coin.
Wonder if the strategy was to trash the coin online and cause the CDN bid to drop.
Hope that is not the case.
And did they bid the Sotheby's coin up to 75K just to raise the CDN bid? Sometimes your comments are so foolish, just reading them causes a drop in IQ.
Will this be a coin of the week event? Feature a non cac'd coin of significant value and play guess the defect?
Now that the auction has ended, I will post links to previous auction sales for THIS coin.
Prices have been rising for 63 DMPL's since 2010 and the latest appearance in PCGS plastic probably helped add another few thousand over the latest NGC sale.
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You are intentionally missing the point. No one I've seen said that CAC doesn't matter. The argument is over CAC mattering too much. The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
I was not talking to you above. I was talking to the close minded, and I decided they were right and I was wrong. Now I will move on.
In last 2 years 90 % of coins I have bought have been CAC.. This CAC hate stuff reminds how coins dealers , howled hated when PCGS ,NGC came on the scene
Look at ebay most CAC coins get more than non CAC coins ,,
I don't see CAC hate stuff in this thread. One can question whether the unintended consequences/obsessions are healthy and whether the price increase is proportional for the putative increase in quality. In some cases yes it is justified and some cases it is not. I don't think anyone in this thread has or would ever take the position that nicer coins should sell for the same price as lower quality coins.
@bestday said:
What is the Wholesale bid on a 1889cc DMPL 63?
55K, but who really knows when a coin only sells every couple of years? There have only been 3 sold in the least 3 years, counting the Sotheby's coin.
Wonder if the strategy was to trash the coin online and cause the CDN bid to drop.
Hope that is not the case.
And did they bid the Sotheby's coin up to 75K just to raise the CDN bid? Sometimes your comments are so foolish, just reading them causes a drop in IQ.
You are down to fractions.
It is refreshing to see you slumping to the same habits that resulting in your banning the last time.
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You are intentionally missing the point. No one I've seen said that CAC doesn't matter. The argument is over CAC mattering too much. The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
I was not talking to you above. I was talking to the close minded, and I decided they were right and I was wrong. Now I will move on.
In last 2 years 90 % of coins I have bought have been CAC.. This CAC hate stuff reminds how coins dealers , howled hated when PCGS ,NGC came on the scene
Look at ebay most CAC coins get more than non CAC coins ,,
I don't see CAC hate stuff in this thread. One can question whether the unintended consequences/obsessions are healthy and whether the price increase is proportional for the putative increase in quality. In some cases yes it is justified and some cases it is not. I don't think anyone in this thread has or would ever take the position that nicer coins should sell for the same price as lower quality coins.
This is a nice response. I was also happy that you feel the CAC coin above is superior to the non-CAC coin. There are some who will blindly disagree with that, like a guy who used to be around here. Glicker was his name I think.
Who said anything about sight unseen? Where did that come from?
m
The GC coin is sight unseen with only a photo to go by. You see it all the time with lesser coins on GC. A bunch of common coins in AU58 CAC went for MS63 money not so long ago.
Ah. I wasn’t following that line of thinking. I haven’t used GC yet. I would never buy anything sight unseen or off of pictures so I would have to disqualify myself. I was just speaking of coins I’ve seen myself or had return privileges on.
Dealers vetting coins for me I obviously don’t count as sight unseen.
mark
High quality images are a little better than sight unseen right?
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You are intentionally missing the point. No one I've seen said that CAC doesn't matter. The argument is over CAC mattering too much. The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
I was not talking to you above. I was talking to the close minded, and I decided they were right and I was wrong. Now I will move on.
In last 2 years 90 % of coins I have bought have been CAC.. This CAC hate stuff reminds how coins dealers , howled hated when PCGS ,NGC came on the scene
Look at ebay most CAC coins get more than non CAC coins ,,
I don't see CAC hate stuff in this thread. One can question whether the unintended consequences/obsessions are healthy and whether the price increase is proportional for the putative increase in quality. In some cases yes it is justified and some cases it is not. I don't think anyone in this thread has or would ever take the position that nicer coins should sell for the same price as lower quality coins.
This is a nice response. I was also happy that you feel the CAC coin above is superior to the non-CAC coin. There are some who will blindly disagree with that, like a guy who used to be around here. Glicker was his name I think.
>
Nowhere did I state that the Sotheby coin is or is not superior to the GC coin. For one reason alone... you have not offered an image of the reverse.
Many consider the obverse to be the more prominent surface and that is fine. It is imperative though to see the reverse before making any competent conclusion.
I stated earlier in this thread that a reverse scuff on the GC coin caused me some pause. Let's see the Sotheby reverse. The fact that JA liked it or that is sold for $75,000 is of little consequence to me, though to subservient pilgrims, that is evidence enough.
@bestday said:
What is the Wholesale bid on a 1889cc DMPL 63?
55K, but who really knows when a coin only sells every couple of years? There have only been 3 sold in the least 3 years, counting the Sotheby's coin.
Wonder if the strategy was to trash the coin online and cause the CDN bid to drop.
Hope that is not the case.
LOL The Forum doesn't move prices when someone wants to buy a coin
I saw no bashing of coins.. instead ,some of the posters tampering down disclosure of coin condition, on this thread ...themselves.. check coins for microscopic ticks before they buy ..LOL
The question was ..if not a CAC for a pricey coin... then, was coin submitted for a CAC, then rejected ... Many Thanks to some very informative posts by several Forum members
@10000lakes said:
Now that the auction has ended, I will post links to previous auction sales for THIS coin.
Prices have been rising for 63 DMPL's since 2010 and the latest appearance in PCGS plastic probably helped add another few thousand over the latest NGC sale.
The question was ..if not a CAC for a pricey coin... then, was coin submitted for a CAC, then rejected ... Many Thanks to some very informative posts by several Forum members
Then why not ask generically whether a coin over $XXX should be presumed to have failed CAC if it isn't wearing a sticker? Why include a specific coin? Most importantly, did you think this coin had a chance of stickering? John is tough on generic 63s; I think this would have failed if an 1883-CC DMPL. CAC is tougher with higher valued coins.
Who said anything about sight unseen? Where did that come from?
m
The GC coin is sight unseen with only a photo to go by. You see it all the time with lesser coins on GC. A bunch of common coins in AU58 CAC went for MS63 money not so long ago.
Ah. I wasn’t following that line of thinking. I haven’t used GC yet. I would never buy anything sight unseen or off of pictures so I would have to disqualify myself. I was just speaking of coins I’ve seen myself or had return privileges on.
Dealers vetting coins for me I obviously don’t count as sight unseen.
mark
High quality images are a little better than sight unseen right?
Yes. One could do their best to interpret the images and with a CAC sticker one could reasonably assert that the coin is all there for the grade. I don’t buy a lot of coins so I prefer to see the coin in hand OR have someone with similar eyeballs vet it for me.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
$40,775 ($45,871.88 with buyer's premium)
I think it did fairly well. CACed pieces have sold for less than $10k more.
And there was a CAC sticker on it?
Interestingly, that is exactly what PCGS does with paper money. Maybe they just need a bigger slab to write on.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I guess CAC really does not matter. Sorry for thinking that it adds value to a coin. My apologies to the CAC haters. (Coins sold less than one month apart.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
Be careful, that could just as easily be a function of venue not sticker.
But I'm not sure anyone said that the market doesn't value CAC. The "haters" were mostly remarking that the market is over-valuing CAC, not failing to value it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
You could speculate and say that is the reason, but there is no speculation that one is CAC and one is not. But sure, lets say that's the reason. CAC does not matter and I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the haters. I was wrong as you can clearly see above.
You are intentionally missing the point. No one I've seen said that CAC doesn't matter. The argument is over CAC mattering too much. The 63 CAC should NOT sell for the price of a 64. PERIOD.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1889-cc-1-ms64-deep-mirror-prooflike-ngc/a/1271-4940.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I was not talking to you above. I was talking to the close minded, and I decided they were right and I was wrong. Now I will move on.
Why not? It should be about the coin. I often pay next grade up for the right coin. I try to pay as little as I can but to get the coins I want I pay up when I have to.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Wisest post that I have seen in a couple months, Mark!
Yes the CAC Sotheby's coin fetched $75k, but it looks like a lock 64 and sold for more than even the 64s I saw. The CAC 63 DMPL right before that one fetched $54k and the one before that was in the $50+k range, both PCGS. I think the $75k is an outlier.
And for the record, I never said that CAC wouldn't add value. I said there could be valid reasons for not submitting. If you have a coin you know will fail, one may choose to not to do so. It allows you to truthfully say that you have never submitted the coin when asked, which is better than having to ethically say it failed. There may be other valid reasons as well as suggested by others.
Based on my experience with Morgans, the coin looks like a 63 DMPL by today's standards but I do not believe it is solid or high end for the grade. I think it would not sticker. I think it sold for a value consistent with its true quality. I refrained from addressing this earlier because I truly believe it is inconsiderate and tacky to attack a coin that is up for sale publicly, which is the real point of contention between myself and a couple of posters in this thread.
Edit: typo
I guess miniscule> @Wabbit2313 said:
The idea you state would be a nice option to be available.
Sight unseen?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Who said anything about sight unseen? Where did that come from?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Seems to have brought a fair value despite all this CAC rhetoric. It looks like a nice coin and I hope the buyer is happy when they receive it.
Interesting thread reading too.
In a way it is. How many people get to see the Great Collections coins in person before they are auctioned? It seems to me that a huge majority of the bidders are bidding based upon photos, and most of those photos are not adequate in my opinion. They show the whole slab, which means that the coin gets only a minority of the space. We know that even the best photos are not a perfect substitute for viewing the coins in person. When the images of the coin are small, they are less so.
Yes, the photos provide you with something, but it is far from perfect.
The GC coin is sight unseen with only a photo to go by. You see it all the time with lesser coins on GC. A bunch of common coins in AU58 CAC went for MS63 money not so long ago.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
In last 2 years 90 % of coins I have bought have been CAC.. This CAC hate stuff reminds how coins dealers , howled hated when PCGS ,NGC came on the scene
Look at ebay most CAC coins get more than non CAC coins ,,
What is the Wholesale bid on a 1889cc DMPL 63?
Look at the top pop PCGS registry coins that are in the toilet now. In Quarters the commons are down 75%.
Free money is rarely free.
55K, but who really knows when a coin only sells every couple of years? There have only been 3 sold in the least 3 years, counting the Sotheby's coin.
Ah. I wasn’t following that line of thinking. I haven’t used GC yet. I would never buy anything sight unseen or off of pictures so I would have to disqualify myself. I was just speaking of coins I’ve seen myself or had return privileges on.
Dealers vetting coins for me I obviously don’t count as sight unseen.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Wonder if the strategy was to trash the coin online and cause the CDN bid to drop.
Hope that is not the case.
And did they bid the Sotheby's coin up to 75K just to raise the CDN bid? Sometimes your comments are so foolish, just reading them causes a drop in IQ.
Will this be a coin of the week event? Feature a non cac'd coin of significant value and play guess the defect?
Not good.
Now that the auction has ended, I will post links to previous auction sales for THIS coin.
Prices have been rising for 63 DMPL's since 2010 and the latest appearance in PCGS plastic probably helped add another few thousand over the latest NGC sale.
$35,937 in Feb 2012 as a NGC 63 DMPL
https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/1889-cc-1-ms63-deep-mirror-prooflike-ngc/a/1167-4235.s?ic16=ViewItem-Auction-Archive-PreviousPricesHeritage-081514
$42,300 in April 2017 as a NGC 63 DMPL
https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/1889-cc-1-ms63-deep-prooflike-ngc/a/1253-15859.s?ic16=ViewItem-Auction-Archive-PreviousPricesHeritage-081514
.> @bestday said:
I don't see CAC hate stuff in this thread. One can question whether the unintended consequences/obsessions are healthy and whether the price increase is proportional for the putative increase in quality. In some cases yes it is justified and some cases it is not. I don't think anyone in this thread has or would ever take the position that nicer coins should sell for the same price as lower quality coins.
It is refreshing to see you slumping to the same habits that resulting in your banning the last time.
This is a nice response. I was also happy that you feel the CAC coin above is superior to the non-CAC coin. There are some who will blindly disagree with that, like a guy who used to be around here. Glicker was his name I think.
High quality images are a little better than sight unseen right?
>
Nowhere did I state that the Sotheby coin is or is not superior to the GC coin. For one reason alone... you have not offered an image of the reverse.
Many consider the obverse to be the more prominent surface and that is fine. It is imperative though to see the reverse before making any competent conclusion.
I stated earlier in this thread that a reverse scuff on the GC coin caused me some pause. Let's see the Sotheby reverse. The fact that JA liked it or that is sold for $75,000 is of little consequence to me, though to subservient pilgrims, that is evidence enough.
LOL The Forum doesn't move prices when someone wants to buy a coin
I saw no bashing of coins.. instead ,some of the posters tampering down disclosure of coin condition, on this thread ...themselves.. check coins for microscopic ticks before they buy ..LOL
The question was ..if not a CAC for a pricey coin... then, was coin submitted for a CAC, then rejected ... Many Thanks to some very informative posts by several Forum members
Same marks on cheek .....both coins
If my tongue and cheek comments offended anyone, my apologies! Cheers to all! Even Glicker!
>
Then why not ask generically whether a coin over $XXX should be presumed to have failed CAC if it isn't wearing a sticker? Why include a specific coin? Most importantly, did you think this coin had a chance of stickering? John is tough on generic 63s; I think this would have failed if an 1883-CC DMPL. CAC is tougher with higher valued coins.
Yes. One could do their best to interpret the images and with a CAC sticker one could reasonably assert that the coin is all there for the grade. I don’t buy a lot of coins so I prefer to see the coin in hand OR have someone with similar eyeballs vet it for me.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......